Editorial: Playing favorites on the Internet

Published: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 at 01:55 PM.

U.S. Sen. Al Franken wasn’t joking when he said that net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of our time.

Even those who don’t agree politically with the Minnesota Democrat can support the principle that Internet service providers shouldn’t discriminate between different kinds of online content. That’s what makes it so troubling that a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Federal Communications Commission rules meant to protect the open Internet.

Allowing corporations such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to award faster speeds to websites that pay them a kickback is bad enough. A bigger worry is that the ruling gives them legal justification to slow or block websites that are competitors or provide objectionable content.

Don’t buy the argument from broadband providers that the ruling allows them to cut costs or provide new services. It’s questionable that any savings will be passed to consumers and, even if you believe that, those costs will just be shifted to fees charged by websites such as Netflix.

All is not lost. The ruling was based on the FCC’s failure to classify broadband providers as being the same kind of utility as landline phone services. The FCC could change the classification and reimpose net neutrality rules — but will be facing massive spending from providers to stop that.

It would be worth the battle, and a grassroots effort is needed to help enshrine the principle of net neutrality in new regulations or federal law.

The Internet’s beauty is that it provides a level playing field between international corporations and the blogger down the street. The principle that companies that control Web access shouldn’t be able to play favorites should appeal to people of all political persuasions.

U.S. Sen. Al Franken wasn’t joking when he said that net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of our time.

Even those who don’t agree politically with the Minnesota Democrat can support the principle that Internet service providers shouldn’t discriminate between different kinds of online content. That’s what makes it so troubling that a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Federal Communications Commission rules meant to protect the open Internet.

Allowing corporations such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to award faster speeds to websites that pay them a kickback is bad enough. A bigger worry is that the ruling gives them legal justification to slow or block websites that are competitors or provide objectionable content.

Don’t buy the argument from broadband providers that the ruling allows them to cut costs or provide new services. It’s questionable that any savings will be passed to consumers and, even if you believe that, those costs will just be shifted to fees charged by websites such as Netflix.

All is not lost. The ruling was based on the FCC’s failure to classify broadband providers as being the same kind of utility as landline phone services. The FCC could change the classification and reimpose net neutrality rules — but will be facing massive spending from providers to stop that.

It would be worth the battle, and a grassroots effort is needed to help enshrine the principle of net neutrality in new regulations or federal law.

The Internet’s beauty is that it provides a level playing field between international corporations and the blogger down the street. The principle that companies that control Web access shouldn’t be able to play favorites should appeal to people of all political persuasions.

If this ruling is allowed to stand, the companies that benefit most from it will have leverage to control more and more of what moves along the information highway, and that would not be good for anybody.

A version of this editorial first appeared in the Ocala Star Banner, a Halifax Media Group newspaper.